Home Page
Communalism Combat
India Rights & Wrongs
Khoj
Aman
Feedback
Action Alerts
Campaigns
Resources
for
Secularism
About us
Contact Us
Sabrang Team
|
http://www.islaminterfaith.org/
A
farce of a nikahnama
- By Seema Mustafa
The importance being attached to itself by the Muslim Personal Law
Board is bewildering. A group of self-appointed persons have come
together yet again, this time to propose a nikahnama (marriage
document) that they claim will protect the rights of the Muslim
woman. And liberals all over - mind you, not Muslim women - have
joined them in welcoming the "big step," the "first important step,"
the "great beginning" as if the proposals contained in the nikahnama
are actually going to help liberate the Muslim woman from the
shackles that have come to be associated with marriage.
The two main reasons for the destitution and victimisation of the
Muslim woman are the triple talaq pronouncement by which a
legitimately married woman finds herself out on the streets after a
lifetime; and the refusal of the Muslim man to pay her and her
children maintenance because of which she often becomes a destitute.
The Muslim Personal Law Board has not addressed these issues at all.
In fact, all that the Board has done is to declare that the triple
talaq method of divorce is undesirable and should definitely not be
used as a favoured practice by the Muslim man to get rid of his
wife. But then this is what even the worst fanatics say, for there
can be no practising Muslim who can actually stand up and declare
that triple talaq - the method by which a woman can be divorced by
the man by pronouncing the word talaq three times at one go - is a
preferred right and can be exercised without discrimination.
I still remember at a conference, several years ago, when a cleric
stood up and in his sanctimonious speech challenged women's
organisations to show him one woman who had been thrown into the
depths of destitution because of the Muslim man's complete misuse of
this provision. We had urged him then to accompany us to the walled
city or even to our homes to bring out those "Shakilas" who had
found themselves outside the institution of marriage simply because
the man they were married to decided one fine day to give them a
divorce. Now we are told by the Muslim Personal Law Board that while
triple talaq is not a happy proviso, there is little that the august
members can do about it at this stage. And we are told by liberals
that at least the Muslim clerics have taken the first step by
recognising that the triple talaq is not a happy practice, and that
they should be given an opportunity to fine tune their reservations
further.
It is not surprising that the loudest protest is coming from the
Muslim women's organisations and individuals who have not hesitated
to decry the Board's sanctimonious nikahnama as a "farce" and have
made it very clear to those who are willing to listen that the
marriage document does not meet any of their requirements. Triple
talaq is an abhorrent practice against which most Muslim countries
have legislated. That the Muslim Personal Law Board in India has
refused to shun it altogether speaks volumes for the backward
thinking of its members. Apparently, there was not a single voice in
the Board to speak in favour of a more progressive nikahnama, a
document that would protect the rights of women and ensure that not
a single person was left without a home and without the means to
sustain herself at the end of the day.
Maintenance is another issue that has to be looked at closely, for
the provisions of the Shariat are being abused by the Muslim man to
deny the woman her basic rights. The new nikahnama proposed by the
Board speaks of giving the meher money at the time of marriage or
within a specified time frame. This is fine, but if meher is also
the only money that a Muslim woman is entitled to after marriage,
then surely the members of the Board should have stepped in to
ensure that the amount is directly proportionate to the husband's
income, and sufficient for the wife to draw upon lest she be thrown
out by the man one fine day. At present, the meher fixed at
marriages is as low as a few hundred or few thousand rupees, "pandan"
money just sufficient to buy "paan" by the woman. It is all very
well to say that the woman's family should insist on a handsome
amount but the members of the Board know better than others, that
this does not happen in reality. But if this sum is specified, and
stipulated, then perhaps women might have a little more protection
and will not remain dependent on the "goodness of man" as appears to
be the case now.
There are thousands of Muslim men who marry four times, leave their
wives and their children without meher or with the pittance that
passes for meher, and move on to exercise this other right that the
Indian Muslim man has abused through the years. The woman is left
holding the children, and is out on the streets looking for some
means to earn a livelihood for herself and her children. Triple
talaq, four wives, no maintenance - and this has been virtually
endorsed by the Muslim Personal Law Board with the new nikahnama
containing not a single provision to guard the Muslim woman from
this sustained abuse. The Board has claimed that it will not be
guided by other Muslim countries, simply because many of these
nations have enacted laws ensuring that a man cannot exercise any of
these supposed rights without sufficient checks built into the legal
system. He cannot pronounce triple talaq in many countries and has
to convince a court of law.
He cannot marry even a second time without convincing the court with
the first wife having full powers to ask for legal redress. But
here, all that they produce at the end of the day is a useless
marriage document, a complete farce that says nothing that has not
been said before. I hope I am wrong, but apparently there is now a
move by some Muslim leaders to insist that the matters relating to
personal law should be tried by Shariat courts and not the court of
the land. Fortunately, in a secular state like India this demand
will just remain that, a demand, and cannot seriously be considered
as a possibility. The few Muslim women who have got some kind of
relief - be it Shah Bano or anyone else - are amongst those who have
approached the secular courts who have then interpreted the Muslim
law to ensure that women are given their rights. God help them if
even this freedom to approach the courts is taken away and their
future shackled to the Shariat courts that the Muslim men are
proposing to further consolidate their hold over the women. One can
only say that the advocates of this must also then allow the Islamic
financial laws and criminal laws to prevail, and insist that they
are tried for the abuse of these provisions of the Shariat as well.
It is amazing how willingly the men here have given up the stringent
Islamic financial and criminal laws to adopt the secular laws of the
land, while they shout themselves hoarse when any attempt is made to
bring the personal laws - including Hindu and Christian laws - under
a secular framework as well.
So while the Muslim man is not willing to have his hand cut off for
stealing, he is the first to stand in line and scream when the
courts allow the meagre maintenance of Rs 500 under the Criminal
Procedure Code to a destitute woman (Shah Bano) to prevent her from
destitution. Again while the Muslim man is not willing to pay zakat
or turn away the handsome interest he gets on his fixed deposits
from the banks, he is the first to attack those questioning his
right to divorce his wife in one sitting, to marry again, and to
ensure that not a rupee is paid from his coffers for the upkeep of
the woman who has spent a lifetime with him.
It is strange that there are many Muslim liberals now who are
actually applauding the Muslim Personal Law Board for bringing out a
marriage document that does not address the fundamental issues and
betrays the usual lack of sensitivity to the victimisation and
exploitation of women under the guise of religion. There can be no
meaningful nikahnama until and unless it protects the woman's rights
in marriage, to have a say in both her marriage and divorce, to have
a right to the custody of her children, and to receive maintenance
from her husband that is not meher but an amount fixed to ensure her
a decent life. Anything less cannot be acceptable to any woman who
values her dignity and self respect
|